| Opinion/The Review

Larger text Larger text Smaller text Smaller text | Order Photo Reprints

Wrong on voter ID II

Email Newsletters

Click here to sign up for one of our email newsletters.

Letters home ...

Traveling abroad for personal, educational or professional reasons?

Why not share your impressions — and those of residents of foreign countries about the United States — with Trib readers in 150 words?

The world's a big place. Bring it home with Letters Home.

Contact Colin McNickle (412-320-7836 or

Daily Photo Galleries

Letter to the Editor
Thursday, Jan. 23, 2014, 8:55 p.m.

I'm confused by Commonwealth Court Judge Bernard McGinley's ruling striking down state law's requirement that voters present proper identification to vote.

As it stands, enrollees for ObamaCare will need to provide a Social Security card, as well as some other form of identification along with tax returns, to enroll in the program.

But this cannot be correct. As all Americans realize by now, obtaining identification is extremely difficult for some. In fact, if one is asked to provide identification at a polling place to vote, many believe that is a form of voter disenfranchisement. However, for a person to get government assistance, the applicant will have to provide the names, birthdates, Social Security numbers and incomes of each person in the household and answer questions regarding any assets.

President Obama made the (outrageous) statement that health insurance is not a privilege, but a right. If voting is a right and health insurance is a right, why is it discriminatory to ask for identification to vote, but not to enroll in health insurance?

Just asking!

Ed Liberatore

Turtle Creek

Subscribe today! Click here for our subscription offers.



Show commenting policy

Most-Read Letters

  1. Volkswagen’s ‘sin’
  2. CO2 propaganda war
  3. Photo ID?
  4. Refugees ruse?
  5. Celebrate MLK, not day of disaster
  6. Bright lines: Boehner’s bombshell
  7. Tick carriers
  8. VA denies benefits
  9. Kill camera bill
  10. Trump & Coulter
  11. Refocusing debate